greenpeace sucks
Even if you are not a sailor yourself, most of you here know the America cup.
The french team has a brand new boat sponsorized by a nuclear company. Greenpeace was much worried by the fact that the sponsor deals with nuclear, so they decide to stop the boat : as a result they destroy a part of it : now the boat have to be repair : it will take two days.
I have nothing agains the respect of environnement, but the mediatic way of protesting of Greenpeace is annoying.
The french team has a brand new boat sponsorized by a nuclear company. Greenpeace was much worried by the fact that the sponsor deals with nuclear, so they decide to stop the boat : as a result they destroy a part of it : now the boat have to be repair : it will take two days.
I have nothing agains the respect of environnement, but the mediatic way of protesting of Greenpeace is annoying.
Comments
<strong>Even if you are not a sailor yourself, most of you here know the America cup.
The french team has a brand new boat sponsorized by a nuclear company. Greenpeace was much worried by the fact that the sponsor deals with nuclear, so they decide to stop the boat : as a result they destroy a part of it : now the boat have to be repair : it will take two days.
I have nothing agains the respect of environnement, but the mediatic way of protesting of Greenpeace is annoying.
If thats is true I'd give them all a year in jail...
did they ram it or tie it up?
that's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard...
they attacked the it because is was sponsored by a nuclear related company...
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>
If that would've been some prankster teenagers, their asses would all be in the clink right now. And I think the sailors and owners of the boat should be given time alone with them in a locked room.
Greenpeace my ass. Peace? Greenterror. Greensabotage. Was the boat itself nuclear-powered?
No? Then they're wrong. They did nothing but break someone else's property. And for no significant results or outcome. They didn't change anything or eliminate nuclear power.
<strong>
If thats is true I'd give them all a year in jail...
did they ram it or tie it up?
that's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard...
they attacked the it because is was sponsored by a nuclear related company...
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
They ram, they said that they did not do it in purpose but they did it. I have eard that many of them where catch by the police. An judge instruction is on the way.
[quote] LORIENT, France (AP) - Greenpeace activists rammed a boat into the French challenger for the 2003 America's Cup on Saturday, denting the yacht's carbon hull.
The 82-foot Defi Areva, which is sponsored by a leading nuclear energy company sustained "serious damage," the syndicate running the French challenge said in a statement.
LCI television showed the Greenpeace dinghy speeding toward the yacht, which was moored at its training base in this northwestern French port, but didn't show the impact.
"It's an act of terrorism," Defi Areva's sports director Pierre Mas told LCI.
It was not immediately possible to contact Greenpeace for comment.
Defi Areva is sponsored by Areva, a French industrial holding company specialized in nuclear plant building and nuclear fuels.
The boat is expected to take part in the Louis Vuitton Cup starting Oct. 1. The winner takes on Team New Zealand for the America's Cup from Feb. 2003.
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Seems more like an act of vandalism rather than an act of terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well they could have killed or hurt somebody...
You dont go around ramming people because you dont like their bumper stickers on their cars do you?
If you see the car in front of you has a "Osama Rules" on his bumper you may get pissed off and give him the finger or call him a name, but the minute you "ram him" or try to cause harm to him or his property you have crossed the line...
whats the difference? They could have endangered the lives of several people... protesting is one thing... they could have just sit out there and annoyed the team or group at the event by verbal protest... but this is too far...
pscates is right... and what did this accomplish? nothing...
This irresponsible act may well have risked the lives of several innocent people to protest the sponsor that they dont like???
how detached is that?
like I said I'd jail them all! and demand a huge fine... or alot of community service
<strong>Seems more like an act of vandalism rather than an act of terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed. Stupid to be throwing that word around, trivializing something a lot more important. Having said that, it is vandalism or sabotage which doesn't make it anywhere near OK either.
Of course, the actions of a few idiots within Greenpeace will now sully the entire organization, which will naturally appeal to the black'n'white world outlook and cheap-shot mentality of so many of those who regard Greenpeace as "liberal", "environmentalist", "pinko", "tree-huggers", "hippies", "communist" etc.
If there was a repeat of, for example, the bombing of a Greenpeace ship by French commandos (off the New Zealand coast) back in the 1970s, or the arrest and incarceration (without charge or due cause) of the Greenpeace activists who, while in international waters off the California coast in 2001 relayed a video feed and re-broadcast by satellite of a missile test which caught the USAF and Bush Adminstration red-handed, deliberately violating an international treaty, then I imagine there would be a similar thread started in here which would basically state: "yeah, about time, go stomp these leftist scum".
What is it that so many folk in this country have against action and organizations dedicated to prevent the environment getting trashed? Perhaps it's a fashion statement, reflecting the nature of the times we are in? Perhaps enviros are looked at as "wimps"? Perhaps its the perception of "leftwing ties to enviros, and the entrenched paranoia of anything "socialist"? Perhaps people feel that any regulations to bring polluters and environmentally irresponsible organizations to order is fundamentally "un-American" because it costs corporations money to clean things up after them and maintain a clean operation, and those $$$ would be better off going into the pockets of the owners and stockholders. Anyone?
The pulling power and lobbying access of big business (big business employs nearly 1000 professional lobbyists in Washington DC, that exceeds the total number of senators and congresspersons by a factor of some 2 to 1) that pollutes so far exceeds that available to "eco" organizations (which have been by default excluded from the festivities in the last 2 years) and occasionally a few of the more gung-ho activists will do something stupid, in frustration. Of course the media will now jump on this opportunity to tar Greenpeace, in the same way that the behavior of a few hundred hired, anonymous black-clad and masked riot-inciters (who were never charged or identified by the police) were blanket associated with the behavior and motives of the 55000 peaceful demonstrators at the WTO in Seattle in 1999.
It is so easy to trash the "green" organizations. It requires no courage, no principle and lots of knee-jerking. After all, the ecos are underdogs, protesters, and muck-rakers. Worst of all, they may even be the dreaded leftwing tree-huggers, "the proverbial monsters your parents warned you against". Yes, many have their faults and double standards, like, for example driving beat-up smoking VW jallopies and buses, or SUVs. But give me those over the corporate criminals and parasites of Enron others far too numerous to list who are allowed and encouraged to hijack what little is left of US democracy with absolute impunity.
I'd get just as mad and snippy at any organization resorting to terrorism (or at the very least, vandalism) to further their cause.
I'm not a big fan of anyone destroying the property and endangering the lives of others, regardless of their political leanings and beliefs.
This just happened to be Greenpeace acting like idiots this time, hence the comments in this thread.
I don't like it when right-wing nutjobs blow up abortion clinics either, in the interest of "saving innocent lives".
<strong>
If there was a repeat of, for example, the bombing of a Greenpeace ship by French commandos (off the New Zealand coast) back in the 1970s, .</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it's was a shame for France, but i was rather in the 1980s. This bombing was stupid, worse there was an innocent people killed (not on purpose), it was a major scandal in France. The two secret agent went in prison in new zealand or australia (i miss that point ) and France was obliged to pay an huge amount of money to greenpeace . Of course as usual the politician who was supposed to have given the order, was never sued. However it stop his politic ascension for a while. At this time Mitterand was president, and of course do not knew a clue about this at all.
<strong>
Well they could have killed or hurt somebody...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea you're right. 3000 people could have been killed. What was I thinking?
[or the arrest and incarceration (without charge or due cause) of the Greenpeace activists who, while in international waters off the California coast in 2001 relayed a video feed and re-broadcast by satellite of a missile test which caught the USAF and Bush Adminstration red-handed, deliberately violating an international treaty,
This isn't accurate. Clipped from the August 12, 2001 New York Times:
"A federal grand jury has charged 15 Greenpeace activists and two foreign journalists arrested in a protest of the Star Wars program last month with felonies in the disruption of the Pentagon's antimissile defense test at the Vandenberg Air Force Base near Lompoc, Calif. Their arraignment is scheduled for Monday in a Los Angeles federal court.
The defendants are six Americans, two Germans, two Britons, two Australians, one Indian, one Canadian and one Swede. They are charged with conspiracy to violate a safety zone. A lesser count of trespassing and one count of failure to obey an order have also been brought against most of the defendants.
A Spanish videographer with a United States green card and a British photographer, both freelance journalists, face similar charges.
The charges, made recently, carry a maximum sentence of more than 11 years in prison and fines totaling $505,000 and are among the stiffest ever handed down to nonviolent protesters arrested in conjunction with antimissile defense rallies at the air base, antimissile defense campaigners said.
Greenpeace has not disputed the presence of protesters in restricted areas during last month's test, when activists delayed the launching by 40 minutes after riding inflatable rafts into the test site's safety zone in the Pacific Ocean beneath the rocket's flight path. But the group contends the charges are unduly harsh.
"This is the first time that people engaging in nonviolent protest have been charged with a felony for simply bearing witness at Vandenberg Air Force Base," said Katya Komisaruk, a lawyer representing the defendants.
In recent years, the military has conducted many missile defense operations at the base to test its ability to shoot down an intercontinental missile, including a similar missile launching in July 2000.
In response, protesters have increased their activities. As a result, more than 50 arrests were made at protests at the base from October 2000 through May of this year, said Carah Ong, the director of research and publication at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which tracks protests at Vandenberg.
But in previous cases, charges amounted to little more than misdemeanor trespassing, which carries a maximum sentence of six months, Ms. Ong said.
Prosecutors maintain the recent charges reflect the severity of the crimes.
"This is a safety issue," said Tom Mrozek, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office in Los Angeles, which is prosecuting the case. "The grand jury made a determination using a probable cause standard that these were the appropriate charges to be made in this case," Mr. Mrozek said.
No plea arrangement has been considered, Mr. Mrozek said."
And now my two cents:
1. Greenpeace's actions had nothing to do with the environment - they were strictly political in nature.
2. Greenpeace is free to protest, but when they break the law they should be punished. Their arrests were clearly justified.
3. The test itself was not a violation of the ABM Treaty. And what activities are permitted under the ABM Treaty is subject to interpretation.
4. The Bush administration was hardly "caught red-handed." Such tests are announced far in advance to the public. Greenpeace knew of this test because it read about it on the front page of the New York Times.
I don't recall electing Greenpeace activists in any election.
And this other, related story was reported by Reuters and Agence France Presse...but also was (naturally and predictably) ignored by the US corporate media.
Yet another instance of the freedom to legally protest being routinely stomped simply because it doesn't quite fit the accepted mold. I can cite hundreds of similar occurrences within the last two years......but "Gobble Gobble" one would imagine that these curtailings of normal freedom of expression are outside of what is deemed acceptable opinion by this authoritarian administration and are of no interest to you.
[quote]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION ORDERS ARREST OF ONE MAN IN A TENT PROTESTING STAR WARS TEST
13 July 2001
Vandenberg Airforce Base, Lompoc, California: Just 48 hours before George Bush's Star Wars missile test, the full might of the US military has been brought to bear on a single Greenpeace activist,
camped out on a tiny Pacific island close to the launch pad of the "kill vehicle" of the Star Wars system.
In a desperate attempt to suppress legitimate protest over the development of the missile programme, US officials have pressured the Marshall Island authorities to issue an arrest warrant and deportation
order for Australian Richard "Alice" Leney. US and Marshallese officials have acknowledged that Leney has not been breaking any laws by camping out on the island with the permission of local
landowners, but will hold him in jail until Monday when he will be taken to court. He has spent two months on his own and has been observing the preparations for the test on nearby Meck Island,
where the interceptor missile is due to be launched on Saturday.
"George Bush has already made it obvious he is not interested in consulting with friends and allies over the implementation of the Star Wars programme. Now he is sending a clear signal that he also
wants to suppress peaceful and legitimate protest of the test on Saturday," said Greenpeace International disarmament campaigner William Peden. "Alice Leney has done nothing wrong - even the US
authorities admit that. George Bush wants to shut down any opposition to Star Wars - from his political allies right down to one man in a tent," Peden added. On Saturday evening the sixth Star Wars missile test is due. Kwajalien atoll in Marshall Islands is the US base from which the interceptor missile is launched following the launch of a rocket from Vandenberg airbase in California.
The Marshall Islands authorities have come under increasing pressure from the US government to arrest Leney since his camp was established following the departure of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow
Warrior two months ago.
"The implementation of Star Wars will prompt a new nuclear arms race. If George Bush thinks we will be deterred from our opposition to the programme simply because he has adopted bully boy tactics
against one peaceful protestor he is mistaken. We will continue to oppose his plan until Star Wars is stopped, " Peden added
Greenpeace activists from around the world will be gathering at Vandenberg Airforce Base in California on Friday to begin a protest against the test which is due on Saturday evening (PDT). The protest
will continue throughout the weekend.<hr></blockquote>
i don't get it, yer pal...
cuss
p.s. card-carryin' Sahara clubber....think Sierra Clubber... only on a dirtbike, with cigarettes and beer.
<strong>correct me if i'm wrong sam... but uh, shooting down ICBM's is a good thing right? and practicing is all a part of it.... and sailboating... that's pretty green right?
i don't get it, yer pal...
cuss
p.s. card-carryin' Sahara clubber....think Sierra Clubber... only on a dirtbike, with cigarettes and beer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and ram a sailboat with a enginereed boat named greenpeace seems paradoxal either.
<strong>SJO, That is all well and good, But your sources are no better than his sources and there is nothing backing up either. Just hearsay. I an not going to take greenpeace's word over law enforcement or miltary. They have an agenda that they want put forth as does the government. The government is trying to test a Nuclear Defence Mechanism. In other words, it shoots down nukes before they can kill the greenpeace folks and others in the US. What does greenpeace want with star wars? Why stop it if it saves lives in a non-nuclear way? What am I missing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, it's a little something called M.A.D. you dimwit. Mutually Assured Destruction. If any country fires an ICBM with a nuclear payload at us, they know that they we will simply launch back and everyone dies. That's what got us through the cold war you ninny. Yes, I said ninny. Now, take away M.A.D. with the star wars defense system. All of a sudden we no longer have a stand off. We have a wounded animal backed into a corner with the big bad US hovering over them. You know what happens when you corner a wounded animal, right? They lash out with ridiculous bible quotes. But seriously folks, M.A.D. is very important to our safety and bushikins doesn't seem to get that.